Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession of Involvement In the 9/11 Black Op

Originally posted by Grimstad
reply to post by tezzajw

 

I am only versed in the topic of Lioyde. The independent verification is in all the physical evidence.

Do you mean the same physical evidence that doesn't show a light pole through the taxi window or how it could have stayed in the taxi window, despite a skidded stop from a speed of around 40, without damaging the windscreen frame or the taxi bonnet?

Where's the independent evidence to show that the light pole was in the taxi window? Go on, show it! Don't be shy!

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Grimstad
The only thing fraudulent here is your assertion based on only partial testimony.

Correction - Lloyde's assertion and his testimony that no one else can support.

Supply another witness who saw the light pole in the taxi. Explain why Lloyde changes his story to put his taxi further North than where the photographic evidence places him.

Do it all while not mentioning the C-130 plane, as that's really off topic for this thread. I'm sure that you can find lots and lots of other threads where the C-130 is crucial to the discussion. Maybe in your short time on ATS, you still haven't learnt to stay on topic?

Disclaimer: The troll in me must inform you that what I type may or may not reflect what I actually think or believe, then again - maybe it does. Don't quote me on that.

Either you are trolling or you are not paying attention.
Lloyde and the C130 don't really have anything to do with each other.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



I disagree. The evidence shows that the plane did crash into the pentagon. Flying as low as it was, combined with physical evidence and HUNDREDS of eyewitness accounts, compared to only a handful, the only place it could go was into the building. The pentagon is alot taller than treetop level. Even your witnesses believe it went straight into the building.

reply to post by tezzajw

That was already covered.
Again, you are either trolling or not paying attention.

That's another thing What did lloyd say to the insurance company?now i don't think they would take what he said at face value taking into account the gravity of the situation.what do you think?could you garner any info from this thought?

Originally posted by Grimstad
Either you are trolling or you are not paying attention.
Lloyde and the C130 don't really have anything to do with each other.

So why did you mention the C-130 right here, a few posts ago?

Originally posted by Grimstad
Your witnesses clearly state there was a 2nd plane marked USAF. In your video you included a picture of a C 130. The C 130 is specifically designed to fly low and slow.

Again, Grimstad, please supply independent, verifiable eyewitness testimony that Lloyde's taxi was speared by a light pole. Go on, do it.

Again, Grimstad, show us the evidence while not drifting off topic to include discussions about the C-130.

I always smile when I'm accused of being a troll while trying to drag a thread back on topic. The contradiction speaks so clearly about some very obvious agendas.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by tezzajw]

And another thought... why is his cab still in his possession, sitting on a piece of property miles from his house in storage? Wouldn't it have been totaled out by the insurance company? Did he get paid out for it?

The damage to the cab was.... shockingly minimal.

reply to post by Tadarida


yes the insurance claim could be a clue to his story,maybe he could not bring himself to have to answer questions about how he got the damage to the cars windscreen and interior

maybe he was paid off? as you say the damage was minimal so why did he not put the car back on the road? is he still waiting on insurance? i want to no about this now

[edit on 2/5/2009 by stealthyaroura]

posted by Grimstad
reply to post by SPreston

 

posted by SPreston
the aircraft engines were inches off the lawn as shown in the official parking lot security videos.

Actually the parking lot videos show no such thing. There is only one frame that shows the plane prior to the explosion. This is to be expected since general purpose systems are generally set to 15 fps or less to save hard drive space. For something like a driveway you can expect frame rates set in single digits.
In that frame, the only thing that can be seen is the top half of the tail and I think a little bit of the nose. It is hidden behind a pedestal at the parking lot gate. However the smoke from the damaged engine (the lowest part of the plane) can be seen and it is feet off the ground, not inches.

I stated that officially the engines were inches off the lawn. That was contained in the official NIST Pentagon Building Performance Report pages 13-14; an integral portion of the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. If the top of the fuselage was 20 feet above the lawn, then the engines which hang lower than the wings and fuselage would have been inches off the lawn.

Government loyalists and military industrial complex partners Purdue University and Integrated Consultants presented the aircraft inches off the lawn.

Purdue University
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c161d1e54ddd.jpg[/atsimg]

Integrated Consultants
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2e62250c480.jpg[/atsimg]

posted by SPreston
The official speed of Flight 77 was 535 mph (784 feet per second) and officially, after hitting the light poles, the aircraft engines were inches off the lawn as shown in the official parking lot security videos.

In fact the engines would have to be inches off the ground in order for the alleged aircraft to enter the Pentagon 1st floor without hitting the building foundation.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1d89121b233.jpg[/atsimg]

Of course the proven location of the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex renders the official south Flight 77 flight path through the light poles and inches above the lawn TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

page 14

3.3 SECURITY CAMERA PHOTOGRAPHS
A Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the
building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photographs (figures 3.3 through 3.7), taken approximately one second apart, show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon.Two photographs
(figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the
fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the
ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.

www.fire.nist.gov...

reply to post by tezzajw


Well we have many photos showing the poles all around.
Several that show Lloydes car with a pole and it’s related debris laying by Lloydes car.
We have very clear pictures of Lloydes windshield (thanks to Craig) showing the hole in the windshield with a clearly defined depression in the drivers side of the break showing the pole was leaning out at an angle towards that side, Lloyde said at a couple points in the interviews that it was resting on the dashboard and and went into the back seat, which would explain why it wasn’t resting on the hood, thus no scratches. This is crucial to the whole concept that the pole didn’t actually go through his windshield.

This whole argument about Lloydes testimony rests on 2 things as far as I can tell. No scratches on the hood and him getting north and south confused.
When Craig took pictures of the back seat the evidence was right there in front of him that the pole hit the back seat The front passenger seat is totally trashed He CHOSE TO IGNORE CRUCIAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT DIDN’T MATCH HIS THEORY. He CHOOSES to place more value in the existence of the David Icke book than the thoroughly trashed seat it was sitting in. This is what I’m talking about when I say searching for proof and not for evidence. All Craig cared about was proof to back up his theory and not evidence... The proof is right there in Craig’s video, the 2008 “Eye of the Storm” interview. Unfortunately it’s buried under 45 MINUTES OF incessant repeating of questions and repeatedly telling a confused old man that all the other evidence and witnesses say he’s wrong. Craig should really be ashamed of himself.

I count approximately 160 witnesses and he chooses 13 that fit his theory
That’s less than 10%. I count 23 witnesses that reported they were in traffic and saw the plane and he picks on one confused old man.
911research.wtc7.net...
Thanks for the link Skadi
At this point in my own investigation I have absolutely no respect for Craig, whatsoever

You guys should have left it alone. The deeper I dig, the more fraud I find.
.
This is what I mean by paying attention and actually examining the evidence.
This represents the faulty investigative technique I spoke of in earlier posts and is throughout the entire investigation. And that’s giving him way too much benefit of the doubt. Should I really trust this guy to deliver the truth? Dare I call him a liar when he says to Lloyde in the video he’s spoken to “dozens” of witnesses and they all refute Lloyds claims?

Please people. Watch his video and decide for yourself. But keep what I said above in mind.


Edit removed rampant underline

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Grimstad]

Originally posted by Grimstad
Well we have many photos showing the poles all around.
Several that show Lloydes car with a pole and it’s related debris laying by Lloydes car.

None that show the light pole punched though the car's windscreen.

We have very clear pictures of Lloydes windshield (thanks to Craig) showing the hole in the windshield with a clearly defined depression in the drivers side of the break showing the pole was leaning out at an angle towards that side,

Those pictures show a smashed windscreen and dash board. They don't show a light pole inside the taxi.

Lloyde said at a couple points in the interviews that it was resting on the dashboard and and went into the back seat, which would explain why it wasn’t resting on the hood, thus no scratches. This is crucial to the whole concept that the pole didn’t actually go through his windshield.

Lloyde said it and no one else in the world can verify it. Can you model the alleged position that the light pole must have been in, to not cause a scratch on the windscreen frame, or the bonnet despite coming to a skidding rest from a speed of 40?

When Craig took pictures of the back seat the evidence was right there in front of him that the pole hit the back seat The front passenger seat is totally trashed He CHOSE TO IGNORE CRUCIAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT DIDN’T MATCH HIS THEORY.

Huh?

The damaged back seat is evidence that the back seat is damaged. The damaged front seat is evidence that the front seat is damaged. Neither the back seat or the front seat being damaged proves that a light pole punched through the windscreen!

The deeper I dig, the more fraud I find.

While I don't speak for Craig, I'm sure that he would agree with you here. I know that I certainly agree with it.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that one of the light poles punched through Lloyde's windscreen... Anytime now would be nice, before it's bed time here.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by Grimstad


So a light pole meticulously penetrates a car windshield, without decapitating the cars occupants, or scratching its hood, and we have a miracle survivor who is TOTALLY adamant he wasnt where video evidence shows he WAS moments after the 'attack', and you expect us to all shrug and say 'nothing to see here'??

How gullible do you really think people on this board are? Or is it it YOU that is gullible? Maybe thats the answer..

Good video Craig. I love your research. The more lies we expose, the closer we get to the TRUTH.

S&F

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Nonchalant]

reply to post by Grimstad


Strangely enough, Grimstad, I think this is one of those very rare occasions where we actually agree on something. I had to give your post a star because you summed up very well what I was trying to get at. (Been suffering a bit of a headcold lately, and the cough syrup is making it hard to concentrate.)

But yes. Though I doubt the official story, it doesn't mean that I will ignore all official evidence. In this case, we have hundreds of witnesses who state where they saw the plane coming in from. Only 14 claim the see the plane flying North of the gas station. And even those reports state they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Those 14 witnesses were also interviewed a few YEARS after the event. Memories tend to get mixed up and vague after a while. The other witnesses accounts were taken either the same day or a few days after, when they were still quite fresh.

As far as Mr. England goes, I still think he's a bit nutty, and seems pretty damned confused to me. I agree that harassing, trying to twist his words or put them in his mouth, ect, are pretty low tactics that border on bullying and harassment.

posted by Grimstad
reply to post by tezzajw

 

I count approximately 160 witnesses and he chooses 13 that fit his theory
That’s less than 10%.

Oh really? You count 160 'eyewitnesses' to the light poles and/or the official Flight 77 aircraft across the lawn? Are you counting the 'eyewitnesses' without any last names and therefore non-locatable? Are you counting those 'eyewitnesses' who were miles away in their officies and therefore not 'eyewitnesses'? Are you counting those 'eyewitnesses' who were in places such as the subway platform at Reagan or over on Highway 110 on the opposite side of the Pentagon who could not possibly have seen the light poles nor an aircraft inches above the lawn?

Are you counting the many 2nd and 3rd hand 'eyewitnesses' who are not even 'eyewitnesses' at all? How in the world do you come up with 160 actual 'eyewitnesses' to the event?

Are you counting all the Mainstream Media 'eyewitnesses' who would lie and read a script in a second if ordered to? Two of them (Walters and McIntyre) screwed up and changed their original testimony when ordered to, didn't they?

How come the government loyalists from the James Randi Foundation of Magicians and Illusionists traveled to Arlington Virginia and found ZERO 'eyewitnesses'? How come Craig and Aldo found lots of eyewitnesses and the government loyalists found NONE?

Where are these alleged 160 'eyewitnesses' of yours? Were they media generated and never actually existed in reality? Were they generated by CIA or FBI video photoshoppers similar to the Harley Guy propaganda skit? How come you so easily accept all these 160 alleged 'eyewitnesses' without any proof whatsoever that they actually existed? Loyalty to your government?

Don't you need to get down there to Arlington Virginia and dig up some real living 'eyewitnesses'? Or do you know deep down in your heart that the only real eyewitnesses you will find will be Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo eyewitnesses; just like Craig and Aldo from the Citizens Investigation Team found?

Geeze; this 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is self-destructing faster and faster.



[edit on 5/3/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elfwe have hundreds of witnesses who state where they saw the plane coming in from. Only 14 claim the see the plane flying North of the gas station.

Hundreds of witnesses who state where they saw the plane coming from? Do you know of ANY who say the plane flew south of the gas station? If so, please name them.

And even those reports state they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Wrong. Most of them do NOT claim to have seen the plane go into the Pentagon. They claim that it hit because they ASSUMED that it hit. They SAW the plane on the Over the Navy Annex/North of Citgo flight path, and then they HEARD the explosion.

The ANC workers did not claim to have seen it, and as Darius Prather put it, "nobody was trying to look see if it was actually going to hit the building or not hit the building... everybody was running in the opposite direction for their lives"

Terry Morin, Edward Paik, and Bill Middleton could not see the alleged impact spot from his their locations and do not claim to have seen it.

I don't even believe Robert Turcios says he saw the plane go into the Pentagon, because there was a mound (small hill) blocking his view, and by the time he ran up it he just saw the tail end of the plane 'picking up" (which it CANNOT do if it hit the building) and then a big explosion.

Only three or four of those fourteen even "stated they saw the plane hit the Pentagon". Sgt Brooks, one of the few who did "state he saw the plane hit the Pentagon", now understands that a plane on the north side cannot hit the building. He still 100% stands by his claim that it flew there, and admits that "anything is possible" in terms of being fooled". He says The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version was an "eye-opener". Sgt Lagasse admits that he flinched and ducked back into his car, and still 100% stands by the plane being on the north side, so the fact is he did not see the plane go into the building because it didn't. Likewise for Sean Boger, who insists the plane came from north of the gas station and Navy Annex.

Stop making false assertions about evidence you clearly are not familiar with.

Those 14 witnesses were also interviewed a few YEARS after the event. Memories tend to get mixed up and vague after a while.

Wrong again. Many of them were interviewed shortly after 9/11 and were on records even then as having seen the plane fly on the north side flight path. Roosevelt Roberts Jr., Darius Prather, Bill Middleton, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Darrell Stafford, for example, were interviewed by the Center For Military History in 2001.

You would know this if you had ever watched their interviews in "The North Side Flyover". Stop making false assertions about evidence you clearly have not viewed.

The other witnesses accounts were taken either the same day or a few days after, when they were still quite fresh.

Again, who are the specific witnesses that you refer to that said the plane was on the south side flight path? Please name them.

As far as Mr. England goes, I still think he's a bit nutty, and seems pretty damned confused to me. I agree that harassing, trying to twist his words or put them in his mouth, ect, are pretty low tactics that border on bullying and harassment.

If you would actually view the evidence you would not make such a statement. CIT has presented conclusive proof that the plane was on the north side of the gas station. This means that Lloyd is a proven liar and complicit, as he virtually admits. In the YouTube video in the original post of this thread he blatantly lies, trying to claim that his cab was on the north side flight path when he admitted moments earlier that he was on/near the bridge on the south side path -- a fact irrefutably confirmed by photographic evidence. Even if he was on the north side (which he wasn't) that would prove a flyover anyway.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Ligon]

At 5:30 in the OP's video, Lloyde tries to tell Craig "I wanna tell you what happened."
But Craig was too busy with his own line of thoughts explanation, to really absorb the message immediately.
The colleague of Craig overheard Lloyde saying that however, and interrupts at 5:36 with "Tell us what happened !"

Then after Craig is still ignoring Lloyde's statement that he wanted to tell what happened; Lloyde says at 5:42 to 5:46 that on the morning of 9/11 at the moments of the plane crossing over Washington Boulevard, he was "at these (overhead) signs right here", and "this is where the pictures were taken".
As he told before, he was driving on a southbound lane.

Of course those pictures we all have seen were taken much further southbound, just passed the bridge over the road to the Pentagon's south car park region. It still has the same name there, as the road passing in front of the Navy Annex, by the way.

At 7:30 he says "We came, we came across the highway together".
Craig : "You and their event?"
Lloyde : "That's right".
And then Craig interpreted this as him meaning it, as "the event and him" came together.

I do not think he meant that, the moment he said that.
Craig should have asked him exactly what he meant by that, and not directly fill in the blanks for him.

I admit, it's easy to say afterwards, after having the time to carefully analyze what's being said in that video.
But Craig really missed a few chances there to let Lloyde explain in his own words what precisely he wanted to say, and not spoon feed him with his words.


Lloyd perhaps meant that someone, the person who belonged to the perpetrators side, met him across that highway. So that person came out of his car on the north bound lane, crossed the concrete bar in the center and came to Lloyde. The tall fellow with the short reddish hair is my main suspect. He can be seen in several other pictures all over the Pentagon lawn during that day. One of them as collecting plane parts from the lawn with a row of other plain clothed men. Strange, on a pure military terrain, where you would expect the military to be quite able of starting their own first investigation.

And as I have mentioned years ago already in this forum, I think that there is a high probability of exposition of Pentagon "witnesses" to sophisticated interrogation techniques, with hypnotists being an important part of it to remove undesired memories from witnesses recollection of events.
That could be a reason for so many logical discrepancies in witness reports.
There were early news reports that most near-Pentagon witnesses were interrogated lengthly on that day by teams of the FBI or whatever other agencies.

So, Lloyde could have been hypnotized into believing his windshield was perforated by a broken lamp post, while in reality he only remembers that he drove near those signs, and then the planted hypnosis takes over.

If you have ever seen a hypnotist at work at a stage, you probably were most baffled by the very short time he needs to bring a test person under his influence.
This crossed my mind as just one of the many possibilities still open for interpretation.

One possibility, however, is definitely closed for interpretation.
That plane flew North of Citgo, and crossed Washington Boulevard just in front of the helipad situated on the Pentagon lawn.
And that is what Lloyde still seems to remember clearly, that he was in front of those signs (and with that high sloping down concrete wall to his left [EDIT: to his right!]), when he registered that plane crossing over in front of him.
That concrete wall is the western boundary of the cemetery where the Military lays its heroes to rest.
And the end of that sloping down wall or a few meters further is exactly the spot where I have shown to you, Craig, and many other readers, that some of the Pentagon witnesses have first seen it too. Witnesses which have been used for many years already as proof by our opponents, that the plane flew on a Southern approach path, when I proved consistently that these people were clearly describing themselves being at or near the Pentagon helipad on the South or Northbound lanes of Washington Boulevard when the plane crossed over there.

I forgot the name of that thread, I think it had the name of Terry Morin in it.
SPreston will remember and help out as usual, I hope.

Graig, don't get so sidetracked by these freshly arriving opponents, they have not read and seen as many threads and videos as we, very old school readers here, have.
We really are at a point in time that the baffling absence of main stream media attending these threads needs addressed, and we should try to find ways of rubbing it under their noses.

However, when you just finished watching those 10 Kennedy assassination plot videos in the ATS Media Center as I did, you get the impression that time has gone by a long time ago already to try the "normal" channels to reach a wide auditorium.

[edit on 3/5/09 by LaBTop]

posted by LaBTop

One possibility, however, is definitely closed for interpretation.
That plane flew North of Citgo, and crossed Washington Boulevard just in front of the helipad situated on the Pentagon lawn.
And that is what Lloyde still seems to remember clearly, that he was in front of those signs (and with that high sloping down concrete wall to his left [EDIT: to his right!]), when he registered that plane crossing over in front of him.
That concrete wall is the western boundary of the cemetery where the Military lays its heroes to rest.
And the end of that sloping down wall or a few meters further is exactly the spot where I have shown to you, Craig, and many other readers, that some of the Pentagon witnesses have first seen it too. Witnesses which have been used for many years already as proof by our opponents, that the plane flew on a Southern approach path, when I proved consistently that these people were clearly describing themselves being at or near the Pentagon helipad on the South or Northbound lanes of Washington Boulevard when the plane crossed over there.

I forgot the name of that thread, I think it had the name of Terry Morin in it.
SPreston will remember and help out as usual, I hope.

Graig, don't get so sidetracked by these freshly arriving opponents, they have not read and seen as many threads and videos as we, very old school readers here, have.
We really are at a point in time that the baffling absence of main stream media attending these threads needs addressed, and we should try to find ways of rubbing it under their noses.

*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

posted by LaBTop
Especially this remark of him should be scrutinized: “”Then the plane, which was taking out telephone and power lines on its way in, hit the building. “”

He reports the plane over the road he was on, Washington Boulevard, as flying so low one could have touched its bottom by standing on a car.

He was on that road for sure:
“”He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' “”
Pay especially attention to him reporting that the plane flew over the helipad.

reply to post by Ligon


Ive already posted a list of eyewitness accounts. Here are a handful of excerpts that with a look of the map of the immediate area, puts the plane south.

Father Stephen McGraw:

Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. "The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church. "I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows. "He literally had the stole in one hand and a prayer book in the other and in one fluid motion crossed the guardrail," said Mark Faram, a reporter from the Navy Times who witnessed McGraw in the first moments after the crash.

Penny Elgas:

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was "Oh My God, this must be World War III!" In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers. In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.

Allen Wallace:

Alan Wallace usually worked out of the Fort Myer fire station, but on Sept. 11 he was one of three firefighters assigned to the Pentagon's heliport. Along with crew members Mark Skipper and Dennis Young, Wallace arrived around 7:30 in the morning. After a quick breakfast, the 55-year-old firefighter moved the station's firetruck out of the firehouse. President Bush had used the heliport the day before: he'd motorcaded to the Pentagon, then flown to Andrews Air Force Base for a trip to Florida. Bush was scheduled to return to the Pentagon helipad later on Tuesday, Wallace says. So Wallace wanted the firetruck out of the station before Secret Service vehicles arrived and blocked its way. He parked it perpendicular to the west wall of the Pentagon. Wallace and Skipper were walking along the right side of the truck (Young was in the station) when the two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away-the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. "Let's go," Wallace yelled. Both men ran. Wallace ran back toward the west side of the station, toward a nine-passenger Ford van. "My plans were to run until I caught on fire," he says. He didn't know how long he'd have or whether he could outrun the oncoming plane. Skipper ran north into an open field. Wallace hadn't gotten far when the plane hit. "I hadn't even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast," he says. He hit the blacktop near the left rear tire of the van and quickly shimmied underneath. "I remember feeling pressure, a lot of heat," he says. He crawled toward the front of the van, then emerged to see Skipper out in the field, still standing. "Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire," Wallace recalls. "There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire." Wallace ran over to Skipper, who said he was OK, too. They compared injuries-burned arms, minor cuts, scraped skin. He ran back into the station to try to suit up. But he found debris everywhere. The ceiling had crumbled, there were broken lights and drywall everywhere. His boots were on fire. His fire pants filled with debris. The fire alarm was blaring.Then Wallace heard someone call from outside. "We need help over here," someone yelled. He ran back outside over to the Pentagon building and helped lower people out of a first-floor window, still some six feet off the ground. He helped 10 to 15 people to safety. Most could walk, though he helped carry one badly burned man. "He wasn't too responsive," Wallace recalls. He helped two other men drag him to the other side of the heliport then he turned around. "I've got to go back," he said. Working with a civilian, Wallace headed back to the building. He could hear more cries for help from inside. There was trash and debris everywhere. The trees were on fire. Wallace headed into the building through an open door, but couldn't find anyone else to save. "After a while I didn't hear anybody calling anymore," he says. "They probably found another way out." www.msnbc.com...

Madelyn Zakhem:

Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC (VDOT Smart Traffic Center), had just stepped outside for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to theground.... I was crying and scared". "If I had been on top of our building, I would have been close enough to reach up and catch it,"

Albert Hemphill:

From the view of the Navy Annex : After a few moments, Lt Gen Ron Kadish, Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization entered the Secure Conference Room to pursue the day's activities and do real work. This office, with two nice windows and a great view of the monuments, the Capitol and the Pentagon was "good digs" by any Pentagon standard. I walked in the office and stood peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon. As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.

For the sake of space, I will post a link to the others.

Eric Bart's Collection

I present this here as it was linked to as evidence to support the premise of the topic of this thread. It is important to the topic as the sole witness testimony in this video is considered as one of the 13 witnesses in question.

North Side Flyover Video produced by CIT
(keep in mind that according to claims in writing and in video, Sean Boger is considered by CIT (Craig and company) to be possibly the single most credible witness, an “expert witness” in fact and I actually tend to agree with them on this point)

Pay close attention starting from about 8:15 .
There is actually an EXCELLENT example of their attempt to lead the witness at 8:53 in which Craig’s accomplice starts to say left and actually stops mid word and rephrases the question to focus on the right. Right is what he WANTS the witness to say. This is called ‘leading the witness” and any lawyer trying this would get slapped down in a heartbeat.

When asked about the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon, Sean Boger clearly states “it would be on MY RIGHT but the GAS STATIONS LEFT”. That comment is briefly put on screen and underlined. The very next statement is, “If I’m looking out the window because I’m looking towards the gas station, it would be on MY RIGHT hand side.” Craig repeats the audio of the 2nd statement while the text remains on screen then immediately flashes a note on the FAR RIGHT SIDE of the screen (actually rather far from the gas station) that says “right / north” but ignores the left side of the Citgo comment. Left side of the Citgo is COMPLETELY CONTRARY to the premise of the north side flyover. He then proceeds to ‘lead” the witness to extract the claim he wants to hear. He changes the perspective 180 degrees to having the gas station behind the witness facing the pentagon (a blatant attempt to confuse the witness) and asks the question again trying to lead him again but instead says the right side of the gas station,(witness agrees). The witness just did a complete 180 degree flip in his testimony (due to a successful attempt to confuse the witness)and Craig only cares about the testimony that supports his theory. Keep in mind this is happening over the phone and the witness has no visible reference to relate to. He is still considered an expert witness

At 11:40 CIT asks if he saw the video that showed the plane low and level when in fact the video only shows it was low and it cannot be seen if the plane is level.
Sean stated clearly that the plane was descending but since it didn’t match what he wanted to hear, he quite literally put words in Sean’s mouth. Again, this is blatant leading.
At 12:30 CIT again says low and level, in fact arguing with the witness about what he just said. Again at 12:40, Sean clearly states the plane did not seem level, “It was actually at a point of descent”, “So if it was let’s say 3 stories high it was descending to 2 stories high”. At 13: 00 you can clearly hear the disappointment in the interviewers voice. He also makes several more comments that CIT does not appear to like. Please watch the video. He also estimates that the plane hit between the 2nd and 3rd floors. Sean clearly stated in previous statements that about the time the plane was actually striking the building, he was taking cover. The statement could only be an estimation based on the observed trajectory. The video then cuts to the “Building performance report” stating that the plane hit on the first floor. So I guess SOME of the OS is ok.

The video ends with a summary.

“Sean literally argued with us against the accuracy of the Pentagon security video”. WRONG. They in fact argued with him trying to shake him from his testimony.

“It’s clear he is not able to reconcile what he saw that day with what is depicted in the video” WRONG. What they told him was on the video was incorrect. The video DOES NOT show level flight which is what Sean tried to say when they argued with him.

“But the low and level approach shown has to be accurate to match up with the physical damage” Wrong. The plane would have in fact been descending to strike the poles and the trailer so high yet enter the building literally at ground level.

“Yet this is impossible in relation to the north side approach as reported by Sean and all other witnesses in this critical area” WRONG. Sean did NOT report a north approach. He was quite clear in stating that the plane was to the left of the Citgo which was to HIS right from his perspective. If you take a look at the layout, everything up to about the time of striking the poles would have taken place to HIS right side.

“The extreme level of validation for the north side approach can not be denied” WRONG again.

“13 different witnesses. 13 different perspectives. 13 times corroborated” STILL WRONG. Sean does not corroborate and I have several more witness testimonies that indicate that some of those alleged north approaches are actually the C 130. Testimony that CIT has but is not presenting. In my post just prior to this one I pointed out how they are mixing accounts of different planes but presenting them all as the airliner.

It is my conclusion that the North Side Flyover Video produced by CIT
Is a complete and utter FRAUD and that ALL “evidence” presented by them so far is tainted beyond refute.
If you have any problems with that statement, please take it to the moderators.

I told you, you should have left it alone. I started out just trying to apply some common sense and logic to the debate but that didn’t appear to be good enough.


EDIT Had to correct one word.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Grimstad]

Originally posted by LaBTop
At 5:30 in the OP's video, Lloyde tries to tell Craig "I wanna tell you what happened."
But Craig was too busy with his own line of thoughts explanation, to really absorb the message immediately.
The colleague of Craig overheard Lloyde saying that however, and interrupts at 5:36 with "Tell us what happened !"

Wrong.

If you are going to criticize you should at least get the quotes right.

Lloyde did not say that, I did not ignore him, nor did I not hear him.

He said "I'm only telling you what happened" in reference to his clearly false claim that he was not on the bridge.

Why are you misquoting Lloyde and misrepresenting this exchange?

The entire exchange is in Eye of the Storm unedited, I only put that clip in this short because it's him STILL maintaining he was not on the bridge even as we were driving under it and we had just obtained the independent images from his neighbor minutes prior PROVING he was on the bridge.

This was also after HOURS of discussion of this very issue with Lloyde in his house, my friends house, on the way to get the cab, and having just gotten the images from his neighbor proving his location, so yes, I was finally starting to get exasperated with his proven lie that he was still dogmatically sticking to.

Frankly you can go off on your foolish theory of Lloyde being "hypnotized" or "schizophrenic" or whatever all you want for all I care but what I know for a fact, and have proof of, is that he was well aware and fully conscious of the fact that he was on the bridge. I know this because he said it when he didn't know he was being recorded and deliberately changed his story when he knew was being recorded.

That is NOT the behavior of someone under mind-control.

Not please get your facts straight and quote appropriately before referencing this information.









[edit on 3-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]